News Stories

[SaintessHeart]

Hawker in dispute with MBS gets full jackpot winnings

This is shameless. Singaporeans cheating Singaporeans? Which retard is the one running the casino?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

The world you see is that of politically divided societies. You stamp a label on a point of view based on your "advanced knowledge" of the geopolitical system. To claim that Pilger is not a qualified journalist shows that you haven't bothered to look much into his work. He is by far one of the very last true journalists out there, he has stated that his mission is to expose the dirty policies of the west and that he has done.

Sugetsu, you know I'm a political junkie and a total philosophy geek.

Yes I have looked into Pilger's work Sugetsu, and that's the problem.
YOU are too intelligent for this guy, and I'm not patronizing you when I say that.
I've talked with you long enough to know that you are more honest than Pilger will ever be.
I just worry that you're not digging deep enough to see that people like him are living in a fantasia of their own making.

If you like Pilger, that's your business, but don't expect me to respect him.

On top of that you give a link to from a pseudo-news right wing website headed by Mr. Crozier who is a fan of Pinochet... the website has a direct link to Rush Limbaugh website for God's sake.

SO?
Limbaugh is a favorite of the conservatives and that site I linked to is a conservative website.

As for Pinochet...
Salvador Allende was stealing farmland from peasants that was aggrivating an already bad situation (due to US sanctions) and helped cause the starvation that preceeded his overthrow.

Pinochet just gave him a taste of their own medicine even though Pinochet was basically a CIA puppet.
The whole Chilean situation went from bad to worse due to intervention by the two superpowers of the time (the USSR and USA).

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts189.html

He doesn't talk much about the USSR or Cuba, or north Korea simply because those regimes are dead and have no broad influence over the globe.

C'mon Sugetsu, you're smarter than that.
He doesn't talk about the USSR or China because it doesn't fit into his dialogue about the "evils" of "capitalism."

The video you linked is great by the way, I have already seen it. I hope you learned something from it, and do some research on Edgar Bernays and Ayn Rand. Those two are the ideological masters of the current United States and your beloved Ronald Reagan.

Don't be silly, you know I don't care for Reagan.

Do you mean Edward Bernays?
He's a Neo-Con, basically a monopolistic-corporatist.

Ayn Rand was an Objectivist, which is a totally ridiculous philosophy, just like Marxian-socialism.

Reagan was just an actor who had no voice of his own and was controlled like a puppet by corporate interests.

Reagan was governor of California before he was president of the United States.
While I agree with you that Reagan was a corporate puppet--Iran/Contra proved that--his quote is still relevent.

You see, I like Obama, Piger doesn't and I understand why he does. But just as Pilger I highly respect intellectuals, and Obama is one of them. But in the end, a politician is a politician, and as politician YOU CANNOT change the world, because in order for you to get elected you must abide by your donor's wishes. This is why Run Paul has been ignored by the media, and why in this year he has been trying hard to become more "main stream". To believe in politics as a tool for change is just a form of self delusion.

This is where you and I differ.
I hate Obama's policies.
He might be a great person, but his agenda was bought and paid for by Wall Street as illustrated in their recent contributions to his re-election campaign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...rc=al_politics

Obama is a corporatist puppet just like all the rest since LBJ.

John Pilger reports on things that nobody in the corporate backed media bothers reporting, such as corporate crime, imperialism, coercion, economic black mail and much more, and for this he has been recognized all over the world.

So has Alex Jones, so what's your point?

[AnimeFan188]

"Senior Israeli officials said Tuesday night that the International Atomic Energy
Agency report stating that Iran has been working on developing a nuclear weapon
design proves that the former UN nuclear watchdog chairman "was an Iranian
agent".

On Wednesday, ElBaradei rejected Israel's accusations and called them "false." His
response was published on the website of the Egyptian daily al-Youm al-Saba'a."

See:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...146150,00.html

[Ithekro]

Well if the Israelis can hide their nuclear program for 40 or so years, why can't Iran for like five? Aside from the whole "likelihood of Iran's government being unstable (mentally)" problem, that is. Iran just sucks at hiding stuff long term and seeming sane enough that no one would both them all that much. If people weren't afraid of them having said weapons and then having a rather poor history with the West, they wouldn't be under the microscope like they are now.

But (to make you wonder) what if they really were making the nuclear reactors and their program for peaceful energy use...until they got saction upon sanction to the point were they decided to go Nuclear just to be safe from the West's seeming constant threats. If that analogy works. It probably doesn't given all the stuff that happened with hijacked planes and whatnot.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Well if the Israelis can hide their nuclear program for 40 or so years, why can't Iran for like five? Aside from the whole "likelihood of Iran's government being unstable (mentally)" problem, that is. Iran just sucks at hiding stuff long term and seeming sane enough that no one would both them all that much. If people weren't afraid of them having said weapons and then having a rather poor history with the West, they wouldn't be under the microscope like they are now.

its not their weapons people fear.
its their delusions of grandeur that makes everyone worry about them getting nukes.

the Saudis and Jordanians aren't exactly staying up at night worrying about Israel trying to take over the middle east, but Iran is a different story.

[MrTerrorist]

Well this is something you don't hear.

Renegade China soldiers 'killed' after Jilin emergency

[Ithekro]

That sort of goes hand in hand with fearing the Iranians having said weapons. Right now they can't realistically do anything without being stomped on like Iraq was in 1991. With them not having a nuclear program, they wouldn't be under the glass so much. They'd still be annoying, but they (and the rest of the world) would know they would get stomped on if they tried something. Without the nuclear threat, they can't really do anything their batshit crazy leaders talk about.

The worry is that they get nuclear weapons and either send them to people that could care less about the nuclear deterrent, or be the people that care less about the nuclear deterrent. Them being the people that care less about it is the really scary one since it places all Iran under threat of becoming glass without their leaders having a care in the world about them. The other one seems more normal (still scary) in like of terrorism. It would just be a bigger bomb in that light. Much bigger. (the scary part is only in the where would they use it? And how many could get out without being found).

[Ithekro]

In the news:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...lks-at-impasse

Business as usually on Capitol Hill as the two parties can't agree even when there are only 12 of them and the budget is at stake. Super Committee? Super at what?

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

As I continue to research Marxism (I'm now reading Ruhle Otto's biography of Marx) I've learned that there really is no difference between Marxism and Modern Socialism other than the method by which they plan to implement socialism.
Marxism is violent, revolutionary overthrow of the established order while socialism is the slow, progressive change via legislation.
Neither is beneficial to humanity and neither have your interests at heart.

Heeeh, let's get this shit started once again, you love it and I love it too.

Allow me to enlighten you this time, last time I gave up because I didn't want to argue but not this time.

Marxism is only "one theory" of the modern socialism, not THE ONE, but one, this is the major error you are writing by putting on the same level one branch of the tree with the trunk.

Both aren't the same, marxism indeed wants to throw away the state, socialism not necessarly, from this you can't say it's the same since there is a major difference.

Marx was no matter how much you hate it, a great sociologue, he analyzed the society and invented some real thing like this class struggle, all of this, without having it as a political opinion.

In the end, you are still doing the shortcut socialism= marxism and since communism is based on marxism it goes : socialism = marxism = communism. The last sentence I quoted absolutely shows this because your POV is so much biased that you are implying that because we occidental are rich, the whole world is rich, forgetting that for one rich human, there's four others humans dying of hunger, illness, or something else. So it's very arguable to say that liberatism is good for humanity and socialism isn't.

So for someone who tells himself being a geek of philosophy, you will have to do better, because for me, you are no different from the usual america idiot. (which doesn't mean you are one, but either you argue properly because you have made reserch on it, or either you continue on your HURRR HURRR socialism is evil without arguments and I will leave like before)

[flying ^]

Students turn out to support the legendary football coach.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...8.html#s463882
(hi-rez pics) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-scandal.html

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Zakoo

Heeeh, let's get this shit started once again, you love it and I love it too.

Allow me to enlighten you this time, last time I gave up because I didn't want to argue but not this time.

Marxism is only "one theory" of the modern socialism, not THE ONE, but one, this is the major error you are writing by putting on the same level one branch of the tree with the trunk.

I'm aware of the various theories of socialism both pre- and post-Marx, but the fact of the matter is, the Marxists only acknowledge two "souls" of socialism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/

Most of the groups that you and I would consider "socialist" the Marxists call "old crap" since they see it as "socialism-from-above."

In other words, Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Libertarian Socialists, Fabians, etc. would be rejected by Marx as being "tools of the bourgeois."

Both aren't the same, marxism indeed wants to throw away the state, socialism not necessarly, from this you can't say it's the same since there is a major difference.

Marx was no matter how much you hate it, a great sociologue, he analyzed the society and invented some real thing like this class struggle, all of this, without having it as a political opinion.

No, Marx was a sociopath.
With, according to Otto and Bauer, no tolerance for anyone else but himself being in control.
His theory has been proven by history (Lenin in particular) to be a total and complete failure.

In the end, you are still doing the shortcut socialism= marxism and since communism is based on marxism it goes : socialism = marxism = communism. The last sentence I quoted absolutely shows this because your POV is so much biased that you are forgetting that because we occidental are rich, the whole world is rich, forgetting that for one rich human, there's four others humans dying of hunger, illness, or something else. So it's very arguable to say that liberatism is good for humanity and socialism isn't.

I'm fully aware of how many people in the world are poor and destitute.
Problem is that most live in socialist countries, since all have governments and thus are not truly communist.
Which leads me to why I said Marxism is the same as Modern Socialism.
No totalitarian government will ever simply "wither away."
It, as Benito Mussolini pointed out, will become increasingly oppressive and ultimately fascist.
No country that has attempted "Scientific"-Socialism has ever achieved a communist state, and none is likely ever to.
Therefore, in practice there is no difference between the two.
In theory, sure, there's a large divide between them, but I'm not interested in the theory.
Theory that is not applied to society cannot murder anyone.

So for someone who tells himself being a geek of philosophy, you will have to do better, because for me, you are no different from the usual america idiot. (which doesn't mean you are one, but either you argue properly because you have made reserch on it, or either you continue on your HURRR HURRR socialism is evil without arguments and I will leave like before)

I'm not making a moral judgement based on opinion.
My "bias" is anchored in reality rather than in what I'm told to believe by those who are adherents to an anti-human philosophy.
After all, most of the democide of the 20th century was committed by Communist/Socialist countries, though not all:

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No country that has attempted "Scientific"-Socialism has ever achieved a communist state, and none is likely ever to.
Therefore, in practice there is no difference between the two.
In theory, sure, there's a large divide between them, but I'm not interested in the theory.
Theory that is not applied to society cannot murder anyone.

So it's the source of our problem. I can't bring myself to think that way sir.
Each country that tried to do it, was influenced by its time, its population and a large fan of conditions, nothing says that in 500 years there will be an equal society and that they won't laugh at our actual system (no matter how much I pass for a anti-capitalist, I'm actually a capitalist, that doesn't make me unable to think there should be more equality between people).

According to me, if there are different theories, there are different ways in pratice, true History showed us two bad face of communism (USSR and China).

I won't answer to your last point because I believe it has no point (I don't seee how to express it), I'm sure if we compare the number of death capitalist society caused, we -by far- outnumber the communist's one. Thus it depends what you're seeking to prove.

In the end I guess it's a difference of vocabulary, what you call socialism, isn't what I call socialism, my socialism is the 'tools of the bourgeois" that you said. I believe the finance/economical system we have is good, but by using socialism way of thinking we can make it better. A direct example would be the banks, that can do what they want because of our "right" politicians and won't ever get punished for their abuses. Ofc, I'm not saying that left politicians will punish them but at least they express the thought while for right it's simply " hey peons/mob, pay for the stupidities the banks did, not like you have the choice anyway."

[Haak]

How did an article on Sarkozy calling Netanyahu a liar turn into a debate about socialism?

Overhaul of the EU under discussion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15671720

[ganbaru]

Three killed, scores trapped after Turkish quake
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7A875D20111109

[DonQuigleone]

I only really take one thing away from marxism, the control of the means of production (IE factories) by the working class. I think of all the things marx talked about that's the key issue, and unfortunately it was never adequately implemented anywhere. If workers can own their own tools, and the profits from them, they will have a greater stake in society, and grow wealthy by honest labour like everyone else.

Unlike marx I don't think the above is incompatible with capitalism (and he has a lot of other stuff to add to that, which I won't go into). Under the current system, a worker has no stake in the success or failure of his company, all the profits go to the owners and upper managers, and they have no interest in his welfare.

Employees should not be passive members of their organisations, and if they have some kind of ownership stake in their organisation, they will go above and beyond the call of duty for it. Employees should feel like they own the business as much as the boss, while boss may formally own a business, the employees are it's lifeblood (now more then ever). When companies arbitrarily shut down plants, outsource for no good reason, and otherwise treat their employees as objects to be freely disposes of, then you're at the crux of the issue.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Zakoo

So it's the source of our problem. I can't bring myself to think that way sir.
Each country that tried to do it, was influenced by its time, its population and a large fan of conditions, nothing says that in 500 years there will be an equal society and that they won't laugh at our actual system (no matter how much I pass for a anti-capitalist, I'm actually a capitalist, that doesn't make me unable to think there should be more equality between people).

According to me, if there are different theories, there are different ways in pratice, true History showed us two bad face of communism (USSR and China).

I won't answer to your last point because I believe it has no point (I don't seee how to express it), I'm sure if we compare the number of death capitalist society caused, we -by far- outnumber the communist's one. Thus it depends what you're seeking to prove.

In the end I guess it's a difference of vocabulary, what you call socialism, isn't what I call socialism, my socialism is the 'tools of the bourgeois" that you said. I believe the finance/economical system we have is good, but by using socialism way of thinking we can make it better. A direct example would be the banks, that can do what they want because of our "right" politicians and won't ever get punished for their abuses. Ofc, I'm not saying that left politicians will punish them but at least they express the thought while for right it's simply " hey peons/mob, pay for the stupidities the banks did, not like you have the choice anyway."

Fair enough, and we agree about the definitions of socialism being different for each group.
We also agree on the banks.

Just a point though, the chart I posted is from a politically-neutral study on Democide and Mortacracy done by the University of Hawaii.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Fair enough, and we agree about the definitions of socialism being different for each group.

Thus it is pointless to even to bother to stamp a label on them. Capitalism, socialism, communism and all else are deep down the same thing; a profit driven system that needs to go.

It is much wiser to asses each case individually when analyzing a person or a society in order to avoid the mistake of association, a mistake that all human beings make; we try to reference something new to our limited source of knowledge. In the end we end up with our own biased definition of the object.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Dilla

I want to say with the recent dirty laundry being aired out at Penn State, it'll be a shame if such a legendary career like Joe Paterno's ends like this.

Joe Paterno once said this about Nixon - "How does this man know so little about Watergate but so much about football"

Someone need to ask Paterno "How does do you know so little about sandusky yet so much about football"

ps. if you want more comments you should have put this in the news section.

[LeoXiao]

After all, most of the democide of the 20th century was committed by Communist/Socialist countries, though not all:

WTF? Where do those 60 million USSR deaths come from? The accepted figure is around 30 million tops for Stalin's era, and after WW2 the USSR did not engage in massive democide, having been de-Stalinized. As for China, 35-40 million died in the Great Leap Forward famine alone, there's still at least a couple tens of millions killed or driven to suicide in the Cultural Revolution and various other campaigns.

But I do agree that Marxism is an anti-human ideology.

Also, as long as you have a government it is by definition a little bit socialist because socialism means government intervention and to have a government you need taxes, which is intervention, which thus is socialism. So socialism is not anti-human, it's as normal as government is. The question is how much.

[Ithekro]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45240250...-more_politics

Sometimes the dirty laundry can't stay hidden under the bed. But that doesn't mean you can clean it.

Nixon's grand jury testimony and other records around Watergate have been released. Over the objection of the Obama Administration (because some of those people are still alive and possibly in office). Stll doesn't tell us anything other than Nixon says those 18 and a half minutes were erased on accident (and that his was mad when he found out just how much was erased). Under oath mind you.